Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
, everybody. as howard mentioned, a big report about the tax components of the fiscal cliff and what the effects could be on american households. i want to make five basic points that we raised in that study. the fiscal cliff really is big. it would be more than $500 billion in a tax increase. this works out to a tax increase of more than 20%, which is very large. looking at whether this would be the largest tax increase in history. for the average household, that works out to about $3,500. someone who earns around $50,000, it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000. the second point is it affects virtually everybody. close to 90% of households would see their taxes go up. there are a few folks out there, primarily older seniors and citizens who do not have children who might not be affected, but the vast majority of american households would be affected by going off of the cliff. the first order for business is running through what the effects will be. those of you in the room have a handout that summarizes things. those of you at work and at home should be able to find thi
that says, if we cut taxes, skew toward the wealthy, and roll back regulations we will be better off. i have a different view. i think we have to invest in education and training. i think it is important for us to develop new sources of energy here in america, that we change our tax code to make sure we are helping small businesses and companies here in the united states. that we take some of the money we are saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild america, and that we reduce our deficit in a way that makes us ablet -- that makes it able for us to create critical investments. it is up to you. are we going to go from the top down, which is what got us into this mess, or do we embrace the new economic patriotism that says america does best when the middle class does best? i'm looking forward to having that debate. >> governor romney. >> thank you, jim. i appreciate the chance to be with the president. appreciate the university of denver and their welcome. congratulations to you, mr. president, on your anniversary. i am sure this is the most dramatic place you could imagine, here with me. so
you're in the position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then. i want to make sure the plumber, said the nurse, the firefighter, it the teacher, the young entrepreneur who does not have money, i want to give them a tax break now. not only did 98% of small businesses like less than to under $50,000. i also want to give them additional tax breaks because they are the drivers of the economy. >> we need to spread the wealth around. in other words, we're going to take joseph money, give it to signature obama and let him spread the wealth around. the whole premise behind the plans are class warfare, but spread the wealth around. i want small businesses that would receive an increase in their taxes. why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? these people are going to create jobs unless you take that money for him and spread the wealth around. i am not going to do that. >> number one, i want to cut taxes for 90 5% of americans. it is sure my friend and supporter warren buffett could afford to pay a low tax. in order to give taxes. then exxon mobil which made
are jobs. i will be the only candidate advocating eliminating income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the irs and replacing that with one federal consumption tax. i embrace the fair tax. i think that is the answer to jobs. if the private sector does not create tens of millions of jobs, i did not know what it will take to create tens of millions of jobs. it is the entry to china. i see manufacturing jobs flocking back to the united states. are you hearing these things from these other two guys? no. they are arguing over who will spend more money on medicare. romney said he wants to increase spending for the military and balance the budget. it doesn't add up. i guess we believe in santa claus and the easter bunny and i do not think they are coming. host: gary johnson is with us and will add a third line for third party voters. we will get to your calls in just a couple of moments. what is the strategy for the rest of the election? guest: right now there is a lot of attention that is being drawn to what it is that i am saying. i'm being recognized for being at 6% nationally. i'll ask you an obvi
is focused on giving herself a $7 million tax cut and hoping that trickles down to people who need help. my plan is focused on investing in the people of this state and funding our schools and building roads and bridges and we recognize the strength of our nation is the people who desperately want to good work. linda does have a plan under website but as we have recently learned, a good part of that is just listed word for word, paragraph by paragraph from white -- from right-wing republican sites in washington. it is not a plan for connecticut. it essentially parrots a bunch of talking points that have not worked for this country. >> why the lack of access as far as where the two of you are day in, day out. >> i don't think there is any comparison in terms of access. linda has refused to meet with editorial boards and i've been very willing to do so. i cannot count the number of press ability -- press availability as i have done. linda mcmahon does not want this campaign to be about issues. because of that is, she loses. whether its tax policy, support for education or women's health care,
and in this country, taxed more. if you tax small business, they are not going to hire. i don't know how you don't figure out what mr. romney so eloquently said in that debate. talking about politics of the 1% or the 47%, conservatives want the best for all folks, and yes, we mean thewe don't want them trapped in poverty. we want them married, paying their taxes -- host: we will get katrina vanden heuvel's response. guest: yeah. listen, if marriage will promote the well-being of the couple, children, great. but in my mind, it is and not just that. that is too simplistic. it is part of the equation. without good jobs, without ensuring that workers have rights and a time -- at the time when big business is so powerful, without doing small things that happened around this country but have taken too much effort, giving women, families early child care, the sense of a community coming together to lift up families, marriages not sufficient. to reduce it to that is too simplistic. no one is saying marriage isn't important. it is not the only a factor in building a family that is doing well. the fact th
there be anything surprising that emerges from there? mike the committee be smaller tax >> we were talking about rumors earlier in the context of -- might thed committee be smaller? >> we were talking rumors earlier. probably the u.s. is on the side, a minor concern that may have affected by a day or two. but fundamentally i think this got decided out of an internal logic in china, and not looking at united states. my own personal guess is that if you look at the pool of people eligible to be the next and the commit -- standing committee, we may have some difficulty deciding which fisher going to get pulled out of the pond. it is revealing to look at the fish in the pond, the totality of what they are choosing among and what we're looking at is a more diverse group of people in terms of education, business, law, even humanity, to some extent. we are looking at a broader generations. we are looking at people, we were talking about xi. he has some enormous experience, my those leaders from all over the world visiting his city. i think we are looking at people experienced in the world. when we look
another $5 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, if we get rid of regulations on wall street, then all our problems will be solved and jobs and prosperity will trickle down on all of you, debts will disappear, we will live happily ever after. there is only one problem with that. we tried that in the ticket before i became president. it didn't work. top down economics never works. we don't need to double down on the same trickle-down policies that got us into this mess in the first place. we don't need policies that just help folks at the very top. that is not how the country grows. that is not how we succeed. we succeed when at the middle class gets a bigger, when more people have a chance to get ahead and live up to their god- given potential. far when we very have leaders who write off half the nation as a bunch of the victims who don't take responsibility for their lives. let me tell you, i have been to nevada in line. you guys may get tired of me. but as i travel around the state, i don't see a lot of the victims. i see a lot of hard-working nevadans. [applause] i see stu
a tax break. we will think that at least some of these guys who give money are just too forward their beliefs. maybe that is starry eyed. at least in some cases, this is really not about consideration. that is not to say that their beliefs to outline of what material considerations. it is a little harder to tell this story of corruption. you can still tell the story of influence. the point of giving money to a candidate somewhere along the line is to change the way policy is made in this country. that will never go away. what do we do with the guys saying i like certain policies and i want to see more of that. >> there was an interview recently where it was said that there's a possibility of federal investigations. he was convinced it obama wins, they will pursue these. >> why not use the real one? >> the real one has already been flogged to death. >> having spent time -- sometimes the press gets it wrong in assuming that every -- anybody who gives money is a bad person. that is the assumption of the narrative. big bad money people who are out to buy the election. the reality is
running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts to pay for the wealthy. the fellow onstage last night said he did not know anything about that. the real mitt romney said we do not need any more teachers in our classrooms. [booing] don't boo -- vote. but the fellow onstage last night, he loves teachers, cannot get enough of them. the mitt romney we all know invested in companies that were called pioneers of the outsourcing jobs to other countries. but he got onstage last night, he said that he does not even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing. he has never heard of them. never heard of them. never heard of tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. he said if it is true, must need a new accountant. we know for sure it was not the real big trouble because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant. the man onstage last night does not want to be held accountable for mitt romney's decisions and what he has been saying for the last year. we know we do not want what he has been saying for the last year. governor romne
on his taxes. >> you mentioned the democratic attacks. i want to ask you to go back in history. back in 1967, your father said a ground breaking standard in american politics. he released his tax return. he released them for not one year, but for 12 years. when he did that, he said, one year to be a fluke. when you release yours, will you follow your father's example? >> may be. [laughter] i do not know. i will take a look. audience: boo! >> i will be happy to release them. i know there are some who are very anxious to see if they cannot make it more difficult for a campaign to be successful. i am not going to apologize for being successful. [applause] i am not suggesting these people are doing that. i know the democrats will go after me on that basis. that is why i want to release these things at the same time. my dad, born in mexico, toward, did not get a college degree. i could have stayed in detroit like him and gotten pulled up in the car business. i went up on my own. i did not inheret money. what i have, i earned. [applause] i will be able to talk to president obama in a way n
the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts to favor the wealthy. the fellow on stage last night said he did not know anything about that. [laughter] the real mitt romney it says we don't need any more teachers in our classrooms. [boos] don't boo, vote. [applause] >> some of the beginning of this rally this afternoon. about five more minutes of your phone calls, your reaction to the debate, what you saw in denver. columbia, maryland, on the independent line. >> good afternoon. just a couple of observations. i just watched obamas rally in denver. i just sat there thinking, wow, where was this guy last night? i really wish he had been a little tougher on romney. i think he had opportunity after opportunity to check him, but he didn't. but i still think in the end obama is going to win this. i just think the contrast is quite different. romney -- i sat there and listened to him tell a lie after lie after lie. people are not out on the news. they may not follow the news, or they may look at fox news and get all the information in there, but they should look at c-span, democracy
, the conservative backlash, seeing the idea of tax dollars going to what many saw as a deserter minorities at white americans' expense -- recently, the supreme court ruled three years ago affirming a white firefighters claimed that they were victims of reverse discrimination in the city of new haven, connecticut. next week, the supreme court will take up fisher vs. university of texas, which challenges whether the race of applicants can be used as a factor in granting admission to diversify the student body. that brings us to today's discussion. we gather here today with a distinguished panel to discuss the future of affirmative action. although affirmative action is a hot-button topic, and as i mentioned earlier, passion's tend to run amok when is the subject of the day, i am hoping to do a better job than jim lehrer and promised to keep our conversation civil and on topic. i am sure most of you are very familiar with our panelists, and if not, you have their biography in the handout. i would not insult your intelligence by reading what you can read for yourselves. however, i want to say by way of
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)